Whether or not a director has final cut is usually contractual and is often a luxury many directors have to fight for. Barron's work prior mostly consisted of music videos and a handful of episodes for Jim Henson's Storyteller. His only film prior to this was a lesser known film called Electric Dreams. The chances of him getting that luxury were probably slim.

A good director knows to "kill their babies" when they negatively impact the film. Not doing that isn't some overly generalized trait all directors have and there are a number of director's cuts that are better than the theatrical versions, including: Aliens, Blade Runner: The Final Cut, the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy, Dark City, The Abyss, Mimic, and although I'm partial to the 1977 theatrical cut, the general consensus is the director's cut of Close Encounters of the Third Kind is the best version. I'd even make arguments for The Frighteners and Nicholas Meyer's two Star Trek films. Plus, that number gets even larger when you consider the vast amount of films in which the theatrical cut is the director's cut.

Also, yes, directors do spend time in the editing room. Yes, the work is done by the editor, but directors do give input and are often involved in the editing of their film in some capacity.

EDIT: Of course, there are also a number of occasions in which directors such as Ridley Scott, Walter Hill, and George Lucas have gone back to some of their noteworthy films and delivered inferior versions. Things are very rarely generalized and all across the board as people claim. Sometimes something is good, sometimes it sucks.

I realize this is off topic but how's the Ghostbusters docs going? I don't visit the GB Fans site any more so not up to date with the Buenos documentaries.

The GB docs are going REALLY well! Like the Sarge said above, the 2-hr version should be out by the 35th anniversary. I heard a sample of the score recently and it's KILLER. GBII is progressing really well.

Full throttle until the finish line. I wish there were more hours in the day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtfbomb

Whether or not a director has final cut is usually contractual and is often a luxury many directors have to fight for. Barron's work prior mostly consisted of music videos and a handful of episodes for Jim Henson's Storyteller. His only film prior to this was a lesser known film called Electric Dreams. The chances of him getting that luxury were probably slim.

A good director knows to "kill their babies" when they negatively impact the film.

Exactly this. Every film is different. The director's job is to give direction. This isn't limited to actors-- production design, score, cinematography, etc. Big picture stuff. I'm sure Barron gave Menke plenty of direction in the first cut.

Golden Harvest just took over post-production on the film at a certain point. I kinda doubt it was anything dramatic. Barron did press for the film. It didn't sound like there was any bad blood at all.

This has not been my experience. Almost every Director's Cut I've ever watched contained crucial pieces of plot and character development which were clearly cut for running time or to appease the ratings board, not to make the film any better.

It's entirely possible that we watch completely different kinds of films, but I'm curious what you're basing your opinion on.

I will say that the "Apocalypse Now" DC had a few slow spots, but so did the rest of the movie so it didn't really bother me. And the ending of the theatrical cut of "Legend" made more sense, while the rest of the movie was better served by the DC. That's all I can think of off the top of my head.

Iíll say Blade Runner is one of the only examples I feel this way about. I love Coppolaís cut of Apocalypse Now, but the added plot is wholly unnecessary and the movie is already a trash fire albeit a beautiful one. Iíve definitely watched his cut way more times than the original.

Seeing as how the entire film is about America's questionable military involvement in various places throughout history, the reinstated subplot in which a group of characters debate that very thing around the dinner table may be a bit slow and talky, but I'd argue that it's far from "wholly unnecessary". I don't know.

Frankly, if it were up to me every movie would be 5 hours long. So we're probably not gonna agree on much about what's "necessary" or not. I like movies, I especially like long movies, and I always appreciate getting as much as possible of something I already like.

I've only seen the "Final Cut" of Blade Runner, so I can't speak to it being better or worse than the original cut. My wife thought the movie was stupid, so I probably won't get to see it again anytime soon either way. I liked it; too slow for her. Sigh.

__________________"I left some words quite far from here to be a short reminder...
I laid them out in stone, in case they need to last forever...""But hey... I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know."
nWo Tech: The Official Thread Poison of the Technodrome Forumshttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxr...awnHgDz1ceDcfA

I've only seen the "Final Cut" of Blade Runner, so I can't speak to it being better or worse than the original cut. My wife thought the movie was stupid, so I probably won't get to see it again anytime soon either way. I liked it; too slow for her. Sigh.

The theatrical cut included a narration that wasn't very good, although it does offer a few extra insights. The first "director's cut" was okay. It was the better version until the Final Cut. From what I understand, Ridley Scott as involved with the assembly of that cut as he was with the Final Cut, which perfectly the pacing of the film.

I've never watched the International Cut, so I am not sure how that particular version holds up.

Only having seen the Final Cut, and only once, I will say that it's a good movie, but a bit slow. I don't think it lives up to its reputation, necessarily, but then again nothing really does. I can see how some people might be disappointed with it.

Like I've heard a lot of people go into it and come out disappointed due to hearing about it's "masterpiece" status for several decades, and then when they see it it's like, "That's it?". That's why I try to remove myself from the hype before experiencing most things; helps me have more realistic expectations.

Haven't seen the recent sequel, since again, my wife didn't care for the original and everything I've heard about the new one suggests that it's the kinda movie I really like, and she really hates. But I'll pick it up one of these days and "force" her to watch it in exchange for me sitting through some junk starring Johnny Depp, or something.

__________________"I left some words quite far from here to be a short reminder...
I laid them out in stone, in case they need to last forever...""But hey... I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know."
nWo Tech: The Official Thread Poison of the Technodrome Forumshttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxr...awnHgDz1ceDcfA

I've only seen the "Final Cut" of Blade Runner, so I can't speak to it being better or worse than the original cut. My wife thought the movie was stupid, so I probably won't get to see it again anytime soon either way. I liked it; too slow for her. Sigh.

The theatrical cut has a film noir voice over. In theory it could work, but it does not.

I personally agree with you on Apocalypse actually. I have a thing where I critically think something is bad, but personally enjoy it. My favorite Wes Anderson movie is The Life Aquatic and until Moonrise Kingdom, it was his worst film.

They announced on their FB pages that Cleanin' Up the Town is looking to hit right in time for the first film's 35th anniversary. So, knock on wood, it looks it's coming out next year, the first doc at least.

Quote:

Originally Posted by d_osborn

The GB docs are going REALLY well! Like the Sarge said above, the 2-hr version should be out by the 35th anniversary. I heard a sample of the score recently and it's KILLER. GBII is progressing really well.

Great stuff. Any idea what year the Harold Ramis interview was conducted?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtfbomb

The theatrical cut included a narration that wasn't very good, although it does offer a few extra insights. The first "director's cut" was okay. It was the better version until the Final Cut. From what I understand, Ridley Scott as involved with the assembly of that cut as he was with the Final Cut, which perfectly the pacing of the film.

I have to say I don't particularly care for the Final Cut and prefer the DC version. Scott fixed a couple of issues but also created a bunch of new ones like changing the colour grading and ruining the end credits theme music. DC all the way for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtfbomb

I've never watched the International Cut, so I am not sure how that particular version holds up.

Not much different. It's the theatrical cut with a bit more extended violence. About five minutes difference if you call it that. The workprint version is cool to watch and not many people notice that watching the deleted scenes in entirety is essentially watching a totally different cut of the movie as well. It's about an hour I think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

So basically Barron finished shooting his movie and then wasn't allowed to be an editor? First of all, you generally don't have a director involved in the editing because they're not going to be objective. Second, how was he "fired"? Was Steve Barron at any point hired to be an editor? No. He was hired to direct the movie and he completed his job.

That's not how it works. The director's job during the editing process is to sit down with the editor and basically go through the film piece by piece to put the film together. The director should have full creative control over the end product unless the producers somehow get in the way. In television it's slightly different: the director of each episode provides pointers to the editor and producers who then go and edit. The producers can choose to ignore any of these pointers and basically tell the editor what to do as they have full control over the end edit. Then the director looks over the final episode and pretty much most of the time goes "yeah it's 80% what I wanted". Unless you have producers in more power, have taken control over the movie due to distrust (Gilliam with Brazil) or you happen to be called 'Sean Connery' those are the only ways the director will not have a say over final edit.